Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
to the clinton levels. do you agree? has assessment was we have to look at tax rates being raised on the wealthiest instead of just looking at deductions. >> i think we need to do both. if you are going down my path, we need both. there is no way to get to that number with tax reform alone. if you consider we will not take away a charitable deduction and if your goal is not to raise taxes from lower and middle-income houses. there is no way to do the arithmetic. there is a lot of good ways of doing reform butthere is no good way of doing it to raise that kind of revenue. we need to do both. we need tax reform and we need higher tax rates on upper-income households. >> it seems to me you could do the tax rates at the end of the year because then you could make the kind of deal that you want. to some of the closing of the loopholes. -- and then do some of the closing of the loopholes. i would hope states that have strong businesses to support this,you could bring the corporate tax rate down and work on the debt by closing the loopholes and subsidies. >> tax reform is complicated. na
tax rates for the wealthiest among us an economic growth. first during the clinton administration, the top marginal tax rate was raised on the wealthiest individuals and the economy grew at its fastest rate in a generation. it added more than 22 million jobs. during the following eight years, the top marginal rate dax tax rate was lower, but economy never regained its strength from the reviews decade. job growth slowed and wages stagnated. middle-class families are vulnerable when the recession began at the end of 2007. i hope this hearing is helpful not just in this hearing, but across this country to people who are watching and waiting for congress to act. i will say more at the end about some of our members who are leaving. it has been an honor for me to serve as chairman of this committee and also served with my friend, kevin brady, as vice chair. he has been great to work with. i hope there'll be bipartisan success in congress. i look forward to working with him as i change seats in the senate for the next congress. -- in a sense for the next congress. i am grateful to our wi
for a short time. we need to leave in a better shape. thank you. [applause] >> going back to clinton era tax rates on the rich will do less economic damage than other revenue raising options. here is part of a tax reform panel that featured lawrence john podesta.hn p >> thank you. i will turn the stage back to either cook from bloomberg. he will moderate -- to peter cook from bloomberg. he will moderate the discussion. >> we hope to come up with some answers from this esteemed panel. >> [inaudible] >> you heard it here folks. we need to come up with some ideas. thank you, chairman baucus. there are some new faces at the table. again, welcome to all of you. we will go around the table quickly and introduce at least our new faces. we have bill gale from the brookings institution. he has done a lot on tax and fiscal issues. we have lindsay, a former economic advisor for president bush. welcome. john podesta and chief of staff to bill clinton. welcome. john has to leave us a little bit early. i will go to him first when we begin. we also have the co-director of bill. we have will marshal as well
, it will matter to folks in tennessee. 39.6%, the top rate. a return to that, what we saw during the clinton years. what will that do to the economy? >> it will hurt, but it is necessary. let me make a few points. first, i think tax reform is obviously better than raising tax rates. raising the top marginal tax rate is less desirable than try to scale back reductions in the tax code. i think there are some reasonable approaches to tax reform. working for the day, going to -- i wish were king for the day, going through the code to decide what is good and what is bad. given that is not going to be the case, i think a proposal like maya's or even the president's is reasonable, and there is a lot of agreement for tax reform. $800 billion fromth the republicans. i think it is $600 billion from the president. i think there is room here for compromise. the second that i will say is that this tax reform will not generate enough revenue. $4 trillion. by my calculation, we do not need $4 trillion, but it is a bigger number than just tax reform will be able to generate, so in that context, we will have to le
, and republicans did not want to do that, but he has the good hand in this struggle. restoring the clinton tax rates is something i would support. we supported them back in 1991 when bill clinton was running for president. no problem on that. it is a reasonable adjustment, but may not be sufficient to reach the targets we need, and it does not help us in bipartisan bargaining, reaching a deal. i hope as this negotiation -- we ought to be at the irish times -- that they will not make a fetish of marginal tax rates if they should go up some, but do they need to go back where they were? i do not know. lots of ways to increase taxes on rich people, and it may be that a hybrid of marginal tax increases and the kind of base- broadening, loophole closing, expenditure closing that simpson-bowles proposed should be part of the mix. raising marginal rates does not guarantee you will get your intended target. very rich people depend more on investment income than on their labor income. if you want to get them -- and this is where mitt romney was able to pay a 14% tax rate on earnings of $14 million -- so
in the past -- the famous showdown with newt gingrich and clinton. when you have divided government, you have clashes of major philosophical difference. the key is being able to have an element of compromise as part of that process. that is exactly the place we are in right now, trying to find that point. >> the best model for all of you who are working so hard on this may well be speilberg's movie about lincoln. lincoln made deals. you know what, he achieved great, great goals. it goes to the point you are making -- politicians are supposed to play politics, that is not a dirty word. >> the legendary "bloomberg view" columnist -- margaret carlson. >> i had this plan for a couple weeks -- i thought, this could happen. when you said you cannot get people in the corner as the president has with the tax increase on the wealthy -- here is the plan. on december 31, the bush tax cuts expire. after you have your champagne and you are funny hats on, on january 1 at 12:01 a.m., there is a middle-class tax cut and the top rate is 39.6%, then they are cut to 37%, so republicans get their tax cut. isn't
the rates on high earners to go back up to what they were under president clinton, and reducing the value of tax deductions and other tax benefits that they get. before i get to how much can be raised by the second, let me just say the president is very, very supportive of curbing tax deductions for high-income households. it's been a part of his plan from his very first budget. in fact, he was and remains the only major leaguer in washington that has put forward a specific, explicit plan that would limit those tax benefits for high- income households that's been examined by the joint committee on taxation, which is the official referee for these issues in congress. that plan, though, doesn't raise the revenue that you need. so out of the president's $1.6 trillion, $950 billion comes from decoupling. decoupling is the high-income rates going away, the middle- class tax cuts becoming permanent. that gets you $950 billion of revenue. the question is could you plausibly replace that revenue just by limiting tax expenditures. there have been lots of different ideas out there. it's always a li
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)